Today's win is #10 for the season, not exactly an imposing number considering it is August, but Buehrle joins CC Sabathia as the only 2 active players to have won 10+ games for 10 consecutive seasons.

comiskey2000

08-03-2010, 04:24 PM

Now he just needs to get 30 starts and 200 innings for the 10th year in a row...

GlassSox

08-03-2010, 04:25 PM

Yes indeed, congratulatins to Mark. He continues to be a work horse pitcher for the White Sox.

Pablo_Honey

08-03-2010, 04:34 PM

Congrats Mark. He may not be the best pitcher in the league but he sure is one of the most consistent work horse there is.

SephClone89

08-03-2010, 04:43 PM

Sad that neither of the two best Sox lefties of the live-ball era will be in the Hall.

sox1970

08-03-2010, 04:47 PM

Sad that neither of the two best Sox lefties of the live-ball era will be in the Hall.

If Buehrle wants to pull a Moyer, he could probably do it. If Buehrle did what Moyer did after age 32, he'd win over 350 games.

Pierce? Hall of Very Good.

White City

08-03-2010, 04:52 PM

Sad that neither of the two best Sox lefties of the live-ball era will be in the Hall.

Mark is still tracking Glavine as a comparable career. Do you think Glavine will make the Hall?

doublem23

08-03-2010, 04:56 PM

Mark is still tracking Glavine as a comparable career. Do you think Glavine will make the Hall?

After Glavine's 32-year-old season, head had 4 20-win seasons and 2 Cy Young Awards.

Mark is 31 now.

SephClone89

08-03-2010, 04:57 PM

After Glavine's 32-year-old season, head had 4 20-win seasons and 2 Cy Young Awards.

Mark is 31 now.

Mark will do that with his hands tied behind his back. :cool:

sox1970

08-03-2010, 05:01 PM

After Glavine's 32-year-old season, head had 4 20-win seasons and 2 Cy Young Awards.

Mark is 31 now.

He only had two 20-win seasons after 31. He won 152 games from ages 32-42. If Mark matched that, he'd have 297 wins, plus whatever he gets the rest of this season.

White City

08-03-2010, 05:03 PM

Buehrle has as many rings as Glavine, a no-hitter and a perfect game. The Cy Youngs aren't there, granted.

Buehrle will have to go about 20 years and get to 300 wins to sew it up, but I think he has a pretty reasonable shot at the Hall. Hopefully he never wears another uniform.

DSpivack

08-03-2010, 05:17 PM

Buehrle has as many rings as Glavine, a no-hitter and a perfect game. The Cy Youngs aren't there, granted.

Buehrle will have to go about 20 years and get to 300 wins to sew it up, but I think he has a pretty reasonable shot at the Hall. Hopefully he never wears another uniform.

I don't, I just don't think he's ever been amongst the most elite pitchers in the game. The Hall of Very Good.

Daver

08-03-2010, 05:19 PM

If Buehrle wants to pull a Moyer, he could probably do it. If Buehrle did what Moyer did after age 32, he'd win over 350 games.

Pierce? Hall of Very Good.

Billy Pierce has very similar career achievements as Don Drysdale, who is in the hall, does Billy deserve to be in or is Drysdale in for something beyond his achievements?

SI1020

08-03-2010, 05:19 PM

Pierce? Hall of Very Good. Maybe so but when you never get more than 1.9% of the HOF vote something is wrong. When you are out polled in various years by the likes Johnny Sain, Bobby Shantz, Bobo Newsom, Harvey Haddix, Carl Erskine, Vern Law and Don Larsen of all people something is very wrong. When you match up very well with more than a few pitchers who are enshrined and are virtually ignored then I for one take HOF voting and selection with a grain of salt.

Daver

08-03-2010, 05:24 PM

Maybe so but when you never get more than 1.9% of the HOF vote something is wrong. When you are out polled in various years by the likes Johnny Sain, Bobby Shantz, Bobo Newsom, Harvey Haddix, Carl Erskine, Vern Law and Don Larsen of all people something is very wrong. When you match up very well with more than a few pitchers who are enshrined and are virtually ignored then I for one take HOF voting and selection with a grain of salt.

The baseball HOF can kiss my rosy red ass.

DSpivack

08-03-2010, 05:25 PM

Maybe so but when you never get more than 1.9% of the HOF vote something is wrong. When you are out polled in various years by the likes Johnny Sain, Bobby Shantz, Bobo Newsom, Harvey Haddix, Carl Erskine, Vern Law and Don Larsen of all people something is very wrong. When you match up very well with more than a few pitchers who are enshrined and are virtually ignored then I for one take HOF voting and selection with a grain of salt.

I always heard him compared pretty evenly with Whitey Ford, but Pierce also played decades before I was born so what do I know.

voodoochile

08-03-2010, 05:29 PM

Congratulations, Mark "10X10" Buehrle!

He's a pefect 100 in my book...

HomeFish

08-03-2010, 06:32 PM

Oh no, Mark might have to settle for 2 no hitters and a WS ring. How tragic.

doublem23

08-03-2010, 06:37 PM

He only had two 20-win seasons after 31. He won 152 games from ages 32-42. If Mark matched that, he'd have 297 wins, plus whatever he gets the rest of this season.

Oops, I'm sorry, I worded that poorly, I meant to say by 1998, Glavine's 32-year-old season, he had won 20 games 4x already. Mark is 31 this year and hasn't done it once.

Buehrle is good, but he's still Tom Glavine Lite.

munchman33

08-03-2010, 07:28 PM

Oops, I'm sorry, I worded that poorly, I meant to say by 1998, Glavine's 32-year-old season, he had won 20 games 4x already. Mark is 31 this year and hasn't done it once.

Buehrle is good, but he's still Tom Glavine Lite.

Agreed. With a lot of success for more years than he's indicated he'd play, maybe the numbers will be there for Buehrle. But not once in Buehrle's career could you make an argument he was the best south paw in baseball, or even the league. That nod was Glavine's many times over. They aren't comparable.

SI1020

08-03-2010, 08:26 PM

I always heard him compared pretty evenly with Whitey Ford, but Pierce also played decades before I was born so what do I know. During the 50s Pierce was often chosen to start against the Yankees and Indians who were the Sox main rivals back then. He had a 7-7 record against Whitey Ford and was 4-7, 2-3 and 7-3 against Early Wynn, Bob Feller and Bob Lemon of the Indians. All 4 of these opponents are in the HOF. He could hold his own against the best of the best. Unfortunately for Pierce, the Sox gave him abysmal run support in his earlier years, which hurt his W-L record. Still, his overall record is very comparable to Don Drysdale and Jim Bunning who are both in the HOF.

Iwritecode

08-04-2010, 10:41 AM

Why are we using W-L records to judge a pitchers HOF eligibility when many agree that it's a horrible stat to judge pitchers with? :scratch:

SI1020

08-04-2010, 10:54 AM

Why are we using W-L records to judge a pitchers HOF eligibility when many agree that it's a horrible stat to judge pitchers with? :scratch: I don't think it's a horrible stat at all. It's just not the be all and end all. I can't speak for anyone else but I do my best to look at the whole picture. Whitey Ford was a great pitcher, but his 236-106 record does not make him that much better than Billy Pierce who was 211-169. OTOH it's not surprising Hal Griggs was 6-26 and Jay Hook was 29-62. There's some good points to the stats revolution, but I think it's a mistake to discount a given stat whether it's W-L record, ERA, batting AVG or whatever. They all matter to some degree.

doublem23

08-04-2010, 10:57 AM

Why are we using W-L records to judge a pitchers HOF eligibility when many agree that it's a horrible stat to judge pitchers with? :scratch:

Because the people that vote for the HOF are idiots who think W-L is an important stat.

voodoochile

08-04-2010, 11:27 AM

Because the people that vote for the HOF are idiots who think W-L is an important stat.

Well it does kind of matter in that it shows longevity and success. How many 300 winners were crappy pitchers who honestly don't deserve to be in the HOF?

Yes, you can inflate a win total by playing on a team with an explosive offense your entire career, but to get 300 wins you needed to appear in at least 300 games where you pitched a minimum of 5 innings. Most teams won't continue to give starts to guys who regularly only go 5 and give up 4 just to have the offense bail them out. Guys like that are at best 5th starters and tend to get traded or replaced the minute someone better comes along.

I realize there's a new set of cool and even good stats available that weren't around a few decades ago, but that doesn't mean that the old stats mean nothing. Honestly, for all the griping about "fogies" not understanding these newfangled intertube propellerhead stats, there's just as much derision coming from the new schoolers back the other way. Stats do mean something. Sometimes not as much as others, but that doesn't mean they mean nothing.

hawkjt

08-04-2010, 11:31 AM

Seems so long ago now that Mark had that 58 straight 6+ innings starts...or was it 56?

That was a sick run. Mr. Dependable....thanks for your greatness!

sox1970

08-04-2010, 11:33 AM

Why are we using W-L records to judge a pitchers HOF eligibility when many agree that it's a horrible stat to judge pitchers with? :scratch:

That's valid, but it's just the way it is. The holy grail for the Hall was 3000 hits, 500 home runs, or 300 wins. Maybe they need to dig deeper, especially with pitchers. I mean, Tommy John would probably be in the Hall if he didn't pitch for so many crappy teams, including the early 70's Sox. And why Jack Morris isn't in, I'll never be able to figure out...well, I know why he's not in yet, but he should be.

SI1020

08-04-2010, 11:46 AM

Well it does kind of matter in that it shows longevity and success. How many 300 winners were crappy pitchers who honestly don't deserve to be in the HOF?

Yes, you can inflate a win total by playing on a team with an explosive offense your entire career, but to get 300 wins you needed to appear in at least 300 games where you pitched a minimum of 5 innings. Most teams won't continue to give starts to guys who regularly only go 5 and give up 4 just to have the offense bail them out. Guys like that are at best 5th starters and tend to get traded or replaced the minute someone better comes along.

I realize there's a new set of cool and even good stats available that weren't around a few decades ago, but that doesn't mean that the old stats mean nothing. Honestly, for all the griping about "fogies" not understanding these newfangled intertube propellerhead stats, there's just as much derision coming from the new schoolers back the other way. Stats do mean something. Sometimes not as much as others, but that doesn't mean they mean nothing. If I had any power around here I would make this post of the month.

Iwritecode

08-04-2010, 11:51 AM

Well it does kind of matter in that it shows longevity and success. How many 300 winners were crappy pitchers who honestly don't deserve to be in the HOF?

Yes, you can inflate a win total by playing on a team with an explosive offense your entire career, but to get 300 wins you needed to appear in at least 300 games where you pitched a minimum of 5 innings. Most teams won't continue to give starts to guys who regularly only go 5 and give up 4 just to have the offense bail them out. Guys like that are at best 5th starters and tend to get traded or replaced the minute someone better comes along.

I realize there's a new set of cool and even good stats available that weren't around a few decades ago, but that doesn't mean that the old stats mean nothing. Honestly, for all the griping about "fogies" not understanding these newfangled intertube propellerhead stats, there's just as much derision coming from the new schoolers back the other way. Stats do mean something. Sometimes not as much as others, but that doesn't mean they mean nothing.

I'm not discounting wins as meaning nothing but it doesn't make sense to say that say he needs X number of 20-win seasons or x number of wins in his career to be a HOF player.

If you want to know how reliable a pitcher he was, look at IP instead.

Moses_Scurry

08-04-2010, 11:53 AM

300 wins will get you into the HOF, whether you like the "win" stat or not. Especially now when so many people say we won't EVER have another 300 win pitcher again.

happydude

08-04-2010, 12:41 PM

I'm not discounting wins as meaning nothing but it doesn't make sense to say that say he needs X number of 20-win seasons or x number of wins in his career to be a HOF player.

If you want to know how reliable a pitcher he was, look at IP instead.

Reliability doesn't necessarily mean Hall of Fame-worthy; neither does total wins or any other stat viewed in isolation. However, though they should not be viewed in isolation that doesn't mean that they should not be viewed at all.

That being the case, total wins seems to be a great place to start along with overall winning percentage, win-loss differential, and earned run average. I personally value ERA more than any other stat because its the one area most within the pitcher's control (and, yes, I realize that good defense, or the lack thereof, plays a role there as well).

voodoochile

08-04-2010, 02:19 PM

I'm not discounting wins as meaning nothing but it doesn't make sense to say that say he needs X number of 20-win seasons or x number of wins in his career to be a HOF player.

If you want to know how reliable a pitcher he was, look at IP instead.

Is IP really a better metric than wins?

If a pitcher pitches 3000 innings and has good peripherals, but doesn't have good win totals does that make them a HOF pitcher?

If Javier Vasquez continues to pitch for the next 5 years and ends up at 3400 IP, 3000 K's and an ERA in the low 3's but a life time W/L of 226-215 should he be put in the HOF?

After Glavine's 32-year-old season, head had 4 20-win seasons and 2 Cy Young Awards.

Mark is 31 now.

So the best IS yet to come!

Iwritecode

08-04-2010, 02:36 PM

Is IP really a better metric than wins?

If a pitcher pitches 3000 innings and has good peripherals, but doesn't have good win totals does that make them a HOF pitcher?

Depends on what his other stats look like. It's possible he was on a lot of teams with a bad offense or a bad bullpen.

Look Roger Clemens 2005 season. He started 32 games and had an ERA of 1.87 :o: yet had a W/L record of 13-8.

I was responding more to this comment:

Most teams won't continue to give starts to guys who regularly only go 5 and give up 4 just to have the offense bail them out. Guys like that are at best 5th starters and tend to get traded or replaced the minute someone better comes along.

If you're a good pitcher, you're going to pitch a lot of innings. You may or may not win a lot of those games though.

Honestly, I agree with the other posters that said that you can't look at a single stat and say whether or not a guy is HOF worthy.

shes

08-04-2010, 03:51 PM

Reliability doesn't necessarily mean Hall of Fame-worthy; neither does total wins or any other stat viewed in isolation. However, though they should not be viewed in isolation that doesn't mean that they should not be viewed at all.

That being the case, total wins seems to be a great place to start along with overall winning percentage, win-loss differential, and earned run average. I personally value ERA more than any other stat because its the one area most within the pitcher's control (and, yes, I realize that good defense, or the lack thereof, plays a role there as well).

For that, you can look at FIP, which accounts for defense in ERA. For example, Floyd's FIP was a few runs lower than his ERA back when his ERA was about 6.50, indicating that he was more unlucky than bad during that stretch, and would eventually turn it around as the season progressed. Same thing with Jenks.

I am not a big fan of wins either, and it seems that mentality is catching on. Lincecum won the Cy Young last year with just 15 wins, despite Carpenter and Wainwright winning more games and having similar ERAs. Lincecum was the better pitcher, and the sportswriters figured that out despite his less impressive W-L record. No starter had won that few games in a non-strike shortened season before and been awarded the Cy Young. I think advanced stats have played a huge role in this sea change of thinking, and it's certainly possible that b/c of this we'll see a re-evaluation of what makes a player a HOFer in the future.

/propellerhead

voodoochile

08-04-2010, 04:08 PM

Honestly, I agree with the other posters that said that you can't look at a single stat and say whether or not a guy is HOF worthy.

I happen to disagree there. I do think 300 wins is a gold standard for HOF induction. More so today when pitchers get less starts per season. I also think 3000 hits is. HR have become cheapened and right now we are looking at the all time leader potentially not being inducted because of the taint that surrounds him. I remember when Kingman was the first 400 HR guy not to be inducted now we have some 500+ guys who aren't going to get in but again that's because of the steroid stuff more than anything not because of their numbers.

happydude

08-04-2010, 04:54 PM

For that, you can look at FIP, which accounts for defense in ERA. For example, Floyd's FIP was a few runs lower than his ERA back when his ERA was about 6.50, indicating that he was more unlucky than bad during that stretch, and would eventually turn it around as the season progressed. Same thing with Jenks.

I am not a big fan of wins either, and it seems that mentality is catching on. Lincecum won the Cy Young last year with just 15 wins, despite Carpenter and Wainwright winning more games and having similar ERAs. Lincecum was the better pitcher, and the sportswriters figured that out despite his less impressive W-L record. No starter had won that few games in a non-strike shortened season before and been awarded the Cy Young. I think advanced stats have played a huge role in this sea change of thinking, and it's certainly possible that b/c of this we'll see a re-evaluation of what makes a player a HOFer in the future.

/propellerhead

Thanks for educating me; I'd never heard of FIP prior to your post.:smile:

Boondock Saint

08-04-2010, 05:13 PM

I happen to disagree there. I do think 300 wins is a gold standard for HOF induction. More so today when pitchers get less starts per season. I also think 3000 hits is. HR have become cheapened and right now we are looking at the all time leader potentially not being inducted because of the taint that surrounds him. I remember when Kingman was the first 400 HR guy not to be inducted now we have some 500+ guys who aren't going to get in but again that's because of the steroid stuff more than anything not because of their numbers.

I'm starting to think that the bar needs to be raised for hitters, and lowered for pitchers. There are going to be more and more players hitting for 500-600 HR's, and less and less pitchers winning 300 games. The game has changed, and the standards need to change with it.